Santos v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 13

ORDER signed by Judge David W. Christel. The Commissioner's final decision is REVERSED and this case is REMANDED for further administrative proceedings. (KEB)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

8
9
10

CHRISTINE M. S.,

11

v.

12

Plaintiff,

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,

13

CASE NO. 3:24-CV-5244-DWC
ORDER REVERSING AND
REMANDING DEFENDANT’S
DECISION TO DENY BENEFITS

Defendant.

14
15

Plaintiff filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking judicial review of Defendant’s

16

denial of her application for supplemental security income benefits (“SSI”). 1 After considering

17

the record, the Court concludes the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred in his evaluation of

18

certain medical opinion evidence. Had the ALJ properly considered this evidence, Plaintiff’s

19

residual functional capacity (“RFC”) may have included additional limitations. The ALJ’s error

20

is, therefore, not harmless, and this matter is reversed and remanded pursuant to sentence four of

21
22
23
24

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73, and Local Rule MJR 13, the parties have
consented to have this matter heard by the undersigned Magistrate Judge. See Dkt. 2.

1

ORDER REVERSING AND REMANDING
DEFENDANT’S DECISION TO DENY BENEFITS
-1

1

42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) for further

2

proceedings consistent with this order.

3

I.

4

Factual and Procedural History
Plaintiff filed a claim for SSI on October 29, 2020. Dkt. 7, Administrative Record (“AR”)

5

204–13. Her application was denied at the initial level and on reconsideration. AR 64, 74. She

6

requested a hearing before an ALJ, which took place on January 6, 2023. AR 30–63, 109–21.

7

Plaintiff was represented by counsel at the hearing. See AR 30. The ALJ issued an unfavorable

8

decision denying benefits, finding Plaintiff had not been under a disability since the application

9

date. AR 12–29. The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for review, making the ALJ’s

10

decision the final decision of the Commissioner. AR 1–6, 202–03. Plaintiff appealed to this

11

Court. See Dkts. 1, 5.

12

II.

Standard of Review

13

When reviewing the Commissioner’s final decision under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), this Court

14

may set aside the denial of social security benefits if the ALJ’s findings are based on legal error

15

or are not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211,

16

1214 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Tidwell v. Apfel, 161 F.3d 599, 601 (9th Cir. 1999)). “We review

17

only the reasons provided by the ALJ in the disability determination and may not affirm the ALJ

18

on a ground upon which he did not rely.” Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1010 (9th Cir.

19

2014). 

20

“[H]armless error principles apply in the Social Security Act context.” Molina v. Astrue,

21

674 F.3d 1104, 1115 (9th Cir. 2012), superseded on other grounds by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1502(a).

22

Generally, an error is harmless if it is not prejudicial to the claimant and is “inconsequential to

23
24
ORDER REVERSING AND REMANDING
DEFENDANT’S DECISION TO DENY BENEFITS
-2

1

the ultimate nondisability determination.” Stout v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 454 F.3d 1050,

2

1055 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Molina, 674 F.3d at 1115.
III.

3
4
5

Discussion
Plaintiff argues the ALJ erred by improperly rejecting medical opinion evidence from

psychological consultative examiner W. Kefron McCaw, Psy.D. Dkt. 9 at 1, 4–5.

6

ALJs must consider every medical opinion or prior administrative medical finding in the

7

record and evaluate the persuasiveness of each one using specific factors. 2 20 C.F.R. §§

8

404.1520c(a), 416.920c(a). The two most important factors affecting an ALJ’s determination of

9

persuasiveness are the “supportability” and “consistency” of each opinion. Id. §§ 404.1520c(a),

10

416.920c(a). ALJs must articulate “how [they] considered the supportability and consistency

11

factors for a medical source’s medical opinions[.]” Id. §§ 404.1520c(b)(2), 416.920c(b)(2).

12

Dr. W. Kefron McCaw performed a consultative examination of Plaintiff on August 13,

13

2020. AR 421. After a clinical interview, Dr. McCaw diagnosed Plaintiff with Generalized

14

Anxiety Disorder with an onset date of 2018, noting that her symptoms of inability to control

15

worry and impaired concentration would affect her ability to work. AR 422. He found Plaintiff

16

had mild or no limitations in her ability to perform most basic work activities but noted moderate

17

limitations in her ability to understand, remember, and persist in tasks by following detailed

18

instructions; perform activities within a schedule, maintain regular attendance, and be punctual

19

within customary tolerances without special supervision; communicate and perform effectively

20

in a work setting; and complete a normal work day and work week without interruptions from

21

psychologically based symptoms. AR 423. He rated the overall severity of Plaintiff’s mental

22
23
24

The regulations regarding the evaluation of medical opinion evidence have been amended for claims filed on or
after March 27, 2017. See Revisions to Rules Regarding the Evaluation of Medical Evidence, 82 Fed. Reg. 5844,
5867–68, 5878–79 (Jan. 18, 2017). Because Plaintiff’s application was filed after that date, the new regulations
apply. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c, 416.920c.

2

ORDER REVERSING AND REMANDING
DEFENDANT’S DECISION TO DENY BENEFITS
-3

1

condition as “none or mild” and indicated Plaintiff would be impaired for about three months

2

with available treatment. AR 423–24.

3

The ALJ indicated that he found Dr. McCaw’s opinion persuasive:

4

The doctor opined the claimant has mostly no or mild limitation in listed mental
work activities, with some moderate limitations, but overall only no or mild
severity. To the extent that the doctor indicates overall only mild mental
impairment, it is supported by his examination and the longitudinal record as
discussed above in evaluating the DDS opinion. Accordingly, Dr. McCaw’s
opinion is persuasive.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

AR 18.
Plaintiff argues the ALJ failed to address Dr. McCaw’s opined moderate limitations or
incorporate these limitations into the RFC. Dkt. 9 at 5. Defendant responds that the ALJ found
Dr. McCaw’s opinion persuasive in the context of the step two determination that Plaintiff did
not have a severe mental impairment and that the ALJ reasonably relied on Dr. McCaw’s opinion
to find Plaintiff’s mental impairments did not significantly limit her functioning over the twelvemonth period required at step two. Dkt. 11 at 1–2. However, the ALJ did not reference Dr.
McCaw’s finding that Plaintiff would be impaired for approximately three months with
treatment. “Long-standing principles of administrative law require us to review the ALJ’s
decision based on the reasoning and actual findings offered by the ALJ—not post hoc
rationalizations that attempt to intuit what the adjudicator may have been thinking.” Bray v.
Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219, 1225–26 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing SEC v. Chenery
Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 196 (1947)). Accordingly, Defendant’s argument is without merit.
The ALJ “need not discuss all evidence presented.” Vincent ex rel. Vincent v. Heckler,
739 F.3d 1393, 1394–95 (9th Cir. 1984). However, the ALJ “may not reject ‘significant
probative evidence’ without explanation.” Flores v. Shalala, 49 F.3d 562, 570–71 (9th Cir. 1995)

24
ORDER REVERSING AND REMANDING
DEFENDANT’S DECISION TO DENY BENEFITS
-4

1

(quoting Vincent, 739 F.2d at 1395). The “ALJ’s written decision must state reasons for

2

disregarding [such] evidence[.]” Id. at 571.

3

Here, the ALJ acknowledged that Dr. McCaw found Plaintiff had “some moderate

4

limitations” but did not provide any reasons for rejecting these moderate limitations, nor did he

5

incorporate the opined limitations into the RFC. Because the ALJ failed to include any

6

meaningful discussion about these limitations, the Court cannot determine whether the ALJ

7

properly considered these opined limitations or simply ignored this portion of the evidence. See

8

Blakes v. Barnhart, 331 F.3d 565, 569 (7th Cir. 2003) (“We require the ALJ to build an accurate

9

and logical bridge from the evidence to her conclusions so that we may afford the claimant

10

meaningful review of the SSA’s ultimate findings.”). Accordingly, the ALJ erred. Had the ALJ

11

properly considered all of Dr. McCaw’s opined limitations, the RFC may have included

12

additional limitations related to Plaintiff’s mental impairments. Therefore, the ALJ’s error was

13

not harmless and requires reversal. On remand, Plaintiff should be provided an opportunity to

14

update the record and, because the ALJ included this discussion at step two of the sequential

15

evaluation, the ALJ should reevaluate step two and all subsequent steps.

16
17

IV.

Conclusion
Based on the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby finds the ALJ improperly concluded

18

Plaintiff was not disabled beginning October 29, 2020. Accordingly, Defendant’s decision to

19

deny benefits is reversed and this matter is remanded for further administrative proceedings in

20

accordance with the findings contained herein. 

21

Dated this 24th day of September, 2024.

22

A

23

David W. Christel
United States Magistrate Judge

24
ORDER REVERSING AND REMANDING
DEFENDANT’S DECISION TO DENY BENEFITS
-5